Picture interpretation and Jungian typology Effect of psychological types The results of the statistical analyses using different personality types can be seen in Table 3, Effect of Psychological Types for the Space Domain Test, and Table 4, Effect of Psychological Types for the Colour Associative Test. As seen n Tables 3 and 4, there were no statistically significant effects when the data were analysed separately for the introverted, intuitive, and feeling groups Although there were trends toward a positive effect for the unconscious quad rant and a negative effect for the mother quadrant that parallel the results from analyses with the complete sample, they were generally not statistically significant at the. oI level when the analyses were divided into groups based on typology. However, this may have been due, at least in part, to a decrease n power that resulted from the decrease in sample size with these sub-group Table 3. Effect of Psychological Types for the Space Domain Test Mean t-value p-value ntroverston FaOD 1447 o.76 3.383 I547 .I2 .638 344 0.733 FuND 2766 324 .192 FaDED 47 1957 0056 UnDCP MODCD FuDCD 4723 L.I8 764 L oII o.31I Intuitive -0.009 UnQD o867 0.668 FaDED 45 I489 UnDCP 6.422 o.o22 MODCD FuDCD o.222 0.917 UnQD o.604 7 FaDED so 4.372 UnDCP 6353 MODCD o.I78 FuDCD 0.039 o984 Note: *=statistically significant at p<oPicture interpretation and Jungian typology 93 Effect of psychological types The results of the statistical analyses using different personality types can be seen in Table 3, Effect of Psychological Types for the Space Domain Test, and Table 4, Effect of Psychological Types for the Colour Associative Test. As seen in Tables 3 and 4, there were no statistically significant effects when the data were analysed separately for the introverted, intuitive, and feeling groups. Although there were trends toward a positive effect for the unconscious quad￾rant and a negative effect for the mother quadrant that parallel the results from analyses with the complete sample, they were generally not statistically significant at the .01 level when the analyses were divided into groups based on typology. However, this may have been due, at least in part, to a decrease in power that resulted from the decrease in sample size with these sub-group Table 3. Effect of Psychological Types for the Space Domain Test N Mean t-value p-value Introversion FaQD 47 1.447 0.761 0.451 UnQD 47 3.383 1.547 0.129 MoQD 47 0.638 0.344 0.733 FuQD 47 2.766 1.324 0.192 FaDCD 47 4.011 1.957 0.056 UnDCD 47 2.638 1.181 0.244 MoDCD 47 −0.553 −0.302 0.764 FuDCD 47 2.149 1.011 0.317 Intuitive FaQD 45 −0.022 −0.009 0.993 UnQD 45 6.533 2.417 0.021 MoQD 45 0.356 0.174 0.863 FuQD 45 0.867 0.432 0.668 FaDCD 45 1.489 0.648 0.522 UnDCD 45 6.422 2.373 0.022 MoDCD 45 −0.401 −0.202 0.841 FuDCD 45 0.222 0.105 0.917 Feeling FaQD 50 1.078 0.371 0.712 UnQD 50 6.882 2.718 0.009* MoQD 50 −1.059 −0.604 0.548 FuQD 50 0.569 0.273 0.786 FaDCD 50 4.372 1.895 0.064 UnDCD 50 6.353 2.431 0.019 MoDCD 50 −3.216 −1.365 0.178 FuDCD 50 −0.039 −0.021 0.984 Note: *=statistically significant at p<.01